Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-01-05
WEDNESDAY. ......JANUARY 5, 1887.
The Railroad Bill-ARaln.

81
been endeayoring to perfect bill to regu-
late the charges OF common carriers. He
ia supposed to be better informed on the
general subject than any other member OF
the House OF Representatives. We are
afraid that his criticism OF our little edlto-
rial Of December 10th, which criticism q
friend IN Washington has sent to us, wlilnot
induce those who read it to place any higher
estimate upon his abilities than they had put
upon them before. However, we let the
reader Judge for himself. A friend OF his
having called Judge RKA0AN's attention to
our editorial OF the date named, he com.
mented upon 1t as follows:
HAn examination OF the bill will show
YOU that Il Is not q lust criticism on the
provisions OF the bill. In the 4th section
OF the bill you will see that, after pro.
yjding that more shall not be charged for
a shorter than for longer haul, which in
cludes the shorter, the bill proceeds, 'but
this shall not be construed as authorizing
any common carrier within the terms OF
this act TO charge and receive as great CON-
pensation for shorter IS for longer dis
lance This is full answer 10 the editorial.
The example given by The writer OF
charging as much for hauling q barrel OF
-four from Staunton to Richmond as for
hauling one from Memphis to Richmond
might be correct as to distance. but Is in
correc, as TO Illustration, because Congress
has no power 10 regulate the rates and
charges between Staunton and Richmond
or between any gwen points In any one
State. Its power OF regulation applies
solely to commerce passing from State TO
State and to or from foreign country, the
States having the exclusive power ana con-
troll Of the question OF transportation
wholly within State"
Inasmuch as we quoted In the editorial
commented upon by Judge REAGAN por.
ton OF the very words OF the bill, and in
our editorial OF Sunday the full text OF the
I'd and 4th sections, he will OF course ac-
quit us OF any intention to resort to unfair
criticism. He, however, quotes the identi'
cal provision that we quoted on Sunday,
and says it is ga full answer to the edlto-
rial" We met this very point yesterday;
but we will meet it again. The language
OF the bill is as quoted above by Judge
REAGAN; and that language, by necessary
implication, legalizes any charge less than
the one for the whole distance.
We repeat, therefore, what we said yes
terday on this point, changing the word
"Burkeville to the word " BRISTOL to
meet the very small objection raised by
Judge REAGAN, that the bill provides first,
that If the common carriers between Men,
phis and Richmond charge one dollar per
barrel for transporting -four from the
former city 10 the latter, they shall not
charge more than dollar for transporting
a barrel OF flour from Bristol to Richmond;
but 1t also declares that this provision shall
not be construed as authorizing them to
charge as much as one dollar from Bristol
10 Richmond. And surely 1t is clear that
this attempt to prevent legalizing the
charge OF one dollar does in effect legalize
charging any sum less than one dOllar-say
ninety.five cents.
We beg leave 10 say also that we knew as
well when we wrote our first article upon
the subject as we know now that Congress
has power TO regulate commerce between
the States, and the State legislatures power
TO regulate commerce within the States
Why should Judge REAGAN have made any
statement as to this question OF power?
There was no occasion for 1t whatever. Ii
must be taken a. a confession that the bill
is obnoxious to the objections we have
raised against it, since otherwise Judge
REAGAN would not have strayed Off from
the subject TO make statement disputed
by nobody a. to the powers OF Congress.
All that we have to do in order to show
that his statement does not touch the point
we raised is TO change the word Staunton .
In our editorial Of December 29th TO the
words "White sulphur Springs" Here
is the whole article upon which he CON-
ments. We said on the Goth:
EEGALIzING HIGH CnARGEs.-The famous
Interstate commerce bill now pending in
both houses Of Congress on the reports OF
their respective committees Of conference
provides that sit shall be unlawful 10
charge or receive greater compensation,
In the aggregate, for the transportation OF
passengers or Of like kind OF property un-
conditions for shorter than for longer
distance over the same line in the same d.
recion, (the shorter being included 10 the
longer distance.V
Which means, OF course, that railroad
company nav charge as much for hauling
a barrel Of -four from stanton 10 Richmond
as for hauling one from Memphis to Rich
mond. We name these places merely by
way Of making the point clear, and not be-
cause the NewpOrt-News and Mississippi
Valley railroad thus diScriminates against
one place or another in its charges. The
bin, II it becomes q law, will thus legalize
sll such charges. And the Supreme Court
OF the United States has decided that the
State legislatures cannot pass cOnstltu-
tional laws regulating charges on freight
passing from one State into another.
The reader will see that our article shows
that we named stanton by way OF illus
tration, and that we knew what the Ss-
prone Court Of the United sla,es had de-
cided In regard TO the matter. All that we
have TO do now In order TO meet Judge
RsAGAN's objection is, as we have said, to
change the word Z" staun,on" to the words
"while sulphur Springs" The reader
will please make that change.
What sort Of argument is II that can thus
be rendered no arguments
----
No Need for Hypocrisy.
The Augusta (Ga.) ConstitItionalist. In